|
FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TRS GLOBAL
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - C74 GENERAL OPERATIVES (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Introduction Of 4-Shift Work- Pay Proposal
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 5 September 2019 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 28 November 2019.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union says that its members believe that imposing a 4-shift cycle would constitute a change of contract.
2. The members object to the introduction of a 4-cycle shift because they currently bank 1 hour per week and this equates to 6 days per year that the members would lose.
3. The Union also states that the members would lose overtime especially at weekends and that they will incur a considerable financial loss.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer says that the requirement to work a 4-cycle shift is clearly encompassed within the terms of the collective agreement and is also a term of the workers' contract of employment.
2. The Employer says that it has been more than reasonable in making proposals seeking the introduction of the 4-cycle shift to alleviate any concerns and to firstly seek volunteers before relying on compulsory shift working.
3. The Employer also says that it has a proposed a mechanism to deal with loss of earnings arising from the introduction of shift work.
RECOMMENDATION :
The within dispute concerns a proposal by TRS Global Ireland Limited (‘the Company’) to introduce a four-cycle shift to parts of its operation at Carrigtwohill, Co. Cork in order to achieve greater efficiencies in the business and to achieve better utilisation of its recent investment in modern plant and machinery.
The Company has a recognition agreement with SIPTU and there is a comprehensive collective agreement in place. That agreement provides, inter alia, as follows:
- “It is a condition of employment that any employee in the Plant may be required to work on a one, two, three or four shift basis and change from one system to another as requested. Reasonable notice of any change will be given except in a case of emergency.
…
The pattern of 4 shift working will be decided by Management to accommodate production scheduling. It will be either (sic) an 8 hours, 10 hours or 12 hour 4 system. Each shift team will rotate through this system in sequence …”.
Discussion and Recommendation
Having regard to the very clear provisions contained in the collective agreement in relation to the potential introduction of various shift arrangements -including a four-shift arrangement - which are not qualified by the reference elsewhere in the agreement to the standard thirty-nine-hour week, the Court recommends that the Workers should co-operate with the Company’s proposal to introduce four-cycle shift arrangements without any further delay.
The Court appreciates that the Workers who will be required to staff the new arrangement may have concerns about a potential loss of overtime as a consequence. Therefore, the Parties should seek to avail themselves of the assistance of the Conciliation Service at the earliest opportunity to endeavour to reach an agreement in relation to that matter in early course.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
CC ______________________
10 December 2019 Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.